Baby Adolf in the Celestial Kingdom
My Seminary kids ask great questions. They apply a youthful logic to the Gospel. For them, things just need to make sense. If they don’t, brows are furrowed.
So, we were looking at D&C 76, that remarkable delineation of Mormon soteriology. One student asked what would have happened had Hitler died at the age of 7. The orthodox answer would be that baby Adolf would be an heir of the Celestial Kingdom. “But that’s not fair,” she replied. “Fate saved him from the evil he would have done had he lived. Fate decides whether we go to the Celestial Kingdom.” What would you have said to that?
“Good, clear thinking”
Comment by greenfrog — January 25, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Other interesting observations:
“I think you should be able to progress from the Terrestrial Kingdom.”
“What? You mean only Mormons go to the Celestial Kingdom?” [Um, no, I mean yes, I mean, kind of…)
“Can you have children if you’re not in the Celestial Kingdom?”
They seemed to like my “Gospel-According-To-Ronan” (a sign to shut-off the hidden CES microphone) suggestion that there may be a continuum of glories rather than just three kingdoms.
I also highlighted the redemption from hell into the Telestial Kingdom for even the wicked. In our class, eternal Outer Darkness was a lonely place populated only by Lucifer and William Law… (Maybe just Law.)
We all decided D&C 76 painted a remarkable and merciful picture. Still, when you teach bright and eager kids about it, some things remain unanswered. This frustrates them a little. Which is why I tell them to go and bug their parents. It’s best heresies come from them, not me.
Comment by Ronan — January 25, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Section 76 was an early revelation (1832) and really doesn’t capture a lot of the later theology. Salvation of children is, I believe, still somewhat underdeveloped (as we have discussed previously). The standard default is that in the Millennium everything gets taken care of and everyone will get to experience life sufficient for kingdom allocation (or no kingdom in McConkie’s perspective). This is all fruits of speculation of course, but it is belief that CES tends to want to cultivate.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 25, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Yeah, nice point. Suppose that, instead of dying, someone had played Russian roulette with Hitler at the age of 7. Then it wouldn’t even be fate that determined whether he went to the Celestial Kingdom or not — it would be chance.
Repeat after me: God is great, God is good, God’s ways are not our ways.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 25, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
My answer: the question is wrong, as it is based on the false assumption that the only difference between Baby Adolf and the Fuhrer is time, that somehow he was in utero this irredeemable monster just waiting to bust out and massacre millions as soon as his physical capacities allowed.
In other words, the person who thinks that it isn’t fair for a 7-yr old to go to heaven is the person who think that it somehow isn’t fair that someone is judged (or not judged, as the case may be) according to their works.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Now, if Baby Adolf = someone who has already engineered and carried out, at the age of 7, the murder of millions, then I think you get into some great issues. But that’s not how I read the question.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
…not the least of which is: since when is accountability an on/off toggle switch?
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
The way I see it, baby Adolph’s presence in the CK means (a) that he would not have to suffer for any sins he would have committed had he lived (no problem there), and (b) that he would not be impeded in his eternal progress by those future sins (unlike, say, those delivered out of hell into the Telestial Kingdom, the assertions of pro-kingdom-hoppers notwithstanding). His presence in the CK says nothing, however, about how much and what kind of progress he would actually make there. I tend to think that the propensities he exhibited as an adult would (unless they are attributable to mental illness, correctable in the resurrection) have led him choose paths of glacial progress.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 25, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
since when is accountability an on/off toggle switch?
According to D&C 29:47, it is not.
Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;
The on/off toggle is an administrative convenience (albeit an inspired one).
Comment by Last Lemming — January 25, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
LL, in my experience the administrative convenience trumps the practical and biological considerations of agency, almost every time. Baptizing kids at 8 is the rule; evaluating their accountability the exception.
P.S. Ronan deserves much kudos for this post. baby adolf is a bit of the old BCC. This is a good post. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of a good flamewar post, and so can you. You say honey is sweet, and so do I.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Baptizing kids at 8 is the rule; evaluating their accountability the exception.
Of course. But like all ordinances, baptism is not valid until sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. I would submit that such sealing cannot occur until full accountability is reached, so the “phasing in” of accountability is not the same as the on/off toggle switch of baptizing at age 8.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 25, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
LL, if so, then why baptise? It’s silly to administer an ordinance in anticipation of some kind of post-hoc acceptance of the ordinance like some kind of proxy……. never mind.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if baby Adolf had died at the age of seven and gone to the celestial kingdom.
Comment by danithew — January 25, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
RT,
I think by “fate” my student meant “God,” which may be what happens when we clumsily call death “God’s will.”
I should tell you what my answer was…
“At the final trump we shall all bow before God in reverence at his justice and mercy.” (Said less pompously.) I am the “dunno” Seminary teacher. They seem to prefer “dunno” to made-up speculative pap.
I’m going to deflect the kudos to my Seminary kids who not only turn up ready to think, but who also aced their Scripture Mastery’s at a recent Stake quiz, and did so without looking like Xenu-ites.
Comment by Ronan — January 25, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Danithew,
That wasn’t the point of the question, I don’t think.
Comment by Ronan — January 25, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Ronan, I’m just saying that it would have saved the world and Hitler a whole lot of trouble.
Comment by danithew — January 25, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Danithew, for sure. But what perplexes this 14 year old is this: a 7-year old and a 70year old have had vastly different opportunities to commit evil. The 7 year old would seem better off. Now, I know there are more sophisticated ways of looking at this, and my heart sinks that some would view a dead infant as “fortunate,”* but a teenager’s logic finds such things confusing.
(*I remember being 8 and thinking that if I died right after my baptism, I would go to heaven. Yuck.)
Comment by Ronan — January 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
I think it would be interesting to learn more about what is thought and taught about Adolf Hitler in Mormon homes, church meetings, CES classes, seminary classes, etc. It seems for some reason that his name comes up in conjunction with LDS scripture study and scripture lessons, but not because he’s a figure of prophecy. Rather, it appears because his name is such a symbol of evil, he is used as the “what if” example or the extreme example that is used to test scriptural injunctions. For example, if we read a scripture where the Lord commands us to forgive all men, many of us seem to reflexively think “even Hitler? Yes, even Hitler.” I wonder how many other scriptural verses or lessons have a sort of Hitler connection in the LDS psyche.
Comment by danithew — January 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Ronan, so your student could read the Russian roulette in my comment above as an instance of sortilege. But I’m not sure that Mormons believe that God ordains whatever comes to pass.
Steve, the question you raise about whether this is problematic or not involves a lot more than just whether judging by works is fair or not. For one thing, it raises the ugly, tired question of libertarian free will vs. compatibilism vs. determinism. If we accept compatibilist free will, which is sometimes a product of Mormon belief in uncreated spirits or intelligences and is also sometimes used as a Mormon argument in favor of God’s omniscience and therefore the reliability of the Plan of Salvation (”God knows us so well that…”), then a random event which interrupted Hitler’s life at age 7 would have cut off a litany of choices that Hitler would inevitably have made. Hitler’s heart would have been the kind of heart that wills the death and destruction of innocence. Since Mormons believe in judgment based on the desires of the heart as well as overt acts, the dilemmas here are far from obviously resolved.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
If a 7 year old Adolf falls out of a tree and dies in the woods when no ones around, does he make a sound?
Seriously, “Dunno” is such a great answer.
Comment by Matt W. — January 25, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Ronan #17, there was a period, decades ago, when I wanted to delay my baptism so that I could be baptized just before I died. Then my sins would all be forgiven and I’d be golden, I imagined.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 25, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Jay, I don’t think we (or at least I) believe in compatibilist free will, at least how you’re setting it out.
Especially when you talk about uncreated spirits, which is a blasphemous, outrageous fiction!!
I don’t see how a 7 yr-old heart can be “the kind of heart that wills the death and destruction of innocence” without experience and time, barring genetics of some sort, unless we believe that some souls are just bad ab initio, and I don’t think that we believe that — or do we…
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Steve, is your “we” you and me, or is it Mormons? Some Mormons certainly do believe that some souls are just bad from the very beginning and that the purpose of “probation” is to sort the good from the okay from the bad.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 25, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Steve, so at age 7 and 364 days, a child is not accountable, and the next day he fully is? I like to think it happens gradually (like L.L. said). Age 8 is when a person begins to handle the understanding and consequences of the gospel. Since we can’t have a different rule for each child, the Lord chose 8 as a good approximation. If it was hard and fast, wouldn’t we put a greater emphasis on baptizing kids on the early morning of their birthday?
Ronan, I think Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk about the three kingdoms a few years back and said that the “Heaven” the world imagines is the telestial kingdom, and that the really bad people (Hitler)will be very pleasantly surprised at their final spot. There are just even greater rewards for the good people and the covenant keepers. To me, this makes sense from a standpoint of Heavenly Father’s plan will reward most of his children. I imagine that’s why so many voted in favor…it’s better to have a body and reside eternally in the telestial kingdom than not have a body. THe telestial outcome was worth the risk.
As to the 7 yr old “fate” thing, every time people say this generation or the next is the great one that’s been held for the last days, I always think “But aren’t all the children who died young better than all of us here?” They were guaranteed the CK (didn’t need to be proven), the jury’s still out on the rest of us.
Comment by Joe B. — January 25, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Joe B: “If it was hard and fast, wouldn’t we put a greater emphasis on baptizing kids on the early morning of their birthday?”
Joe, I thought that is pretty much what we did, albeit in a lackadaisical fashion.
Comment by Steve Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
And Ronan sent the students home cryptically suggesting they ponder on three letters: M, M, and P…
Comment by Geoff J — January 25, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Steve, I was thinking some more on this after my last response and am coming around to your point of view. Maybe the emphasis should be on the baptism, not the age. Could we say that baptism is a covenant, and that children under 8 aren’t “accountable enough” to enter into a covenant with the Lord? When they turn 8, we have them make the covenant, at which point they are completely accountable to the extent they understand and can keep their covenant. But for practical purposes, my son (who turns 8 in two weeks but will be baptized on the Saturday a couple of days after) is not all the sudden accountable on his birthday, he’s at the age where he can make a covenant and become accountable.
As to the original question, may I rephrase it to what I believe the core issue is? Because children under 8 go to the CK (according to revelation), does the Lord keep tight control (intervene) over every child that dies under that age. In otherwords, the Lord wouldn’t let someone like Hitler die at age 7 and get a “lucky break” into the CK.
Comment by Joe B. — January 25, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Joe: “the Lord wouldn’t let someone like Hitler die at age 7 and get a ‘lucky break’ into the CK.” This is a great formulation of the central issue! Before we rush to answer, think about how profoundly deterministic this point of view makes the world. Not only do natural events like hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis have to be divinely micromanaged to avoid killing the really wicked; but human evil also has to be under divine control, because a mugger cannot be allowed to kill baby Hitler.
On the other hand, if we relax this and suppose that God doesn’t systematically prevent those who have the disposition to do evil from dying before age 8, then we either end up with a situation in which those who die before 8 really are lucky — because the eternal uncertainty related to living maybe just a few more days is replaced by a guaranteed place in celestial glory — or we are forced to relax the children-under-8 rules.
All this really means that our knowledge of the plan of salvation is substantially less complete than we sometimes like to claim…
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 25, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Ronan, I am deeply envious of your experience teaching those kids. Last year when I was teaching SS to the high school age kids, I was hoping for just this sort of interaction. It never happened. My kids simply lacked any kind of intellectual curiousity whatever. It was a serious bummer.
So get on your knees and say a prayer of thanks for the kids you are blessed to have in your class. This calibre of question and involvement and thought is simply outstanding.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 25, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
I would be willing to bet that our understanding of the afterlife and who goes where is severely limited by our understanding of antemortal life. We simply have no idea what anyone did or did not do before they came here, other than that we all chose to come. There are many “Perhaps” that fit within what we do know. For example:
1) Perhaps those who die without accountability (whether through youth or ignorance) either prove themselves in some other way or have already proven themselves before they came here.
2) Perhaps those who die early were in a state to be allowed to volunteer themselves in order to enrich or test those whose lives would touch theirs.
In addition, I believe we were sent here, not to prove ourselves to God (since He already knows all things), but to prove ourselves to ourselves. We needed to know if we would “do all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command. . . .” This life is not a game of walking the tightrope to see if we fall off one side or another. It is a rite of passage, a chance for us to know ourselves better. Perhaps those who die young have learned what they need to know to progress throughout eternity. Perhaps Hitler needed to find out what he would do. Perhaps millions of other people needed to find out what they would do. The Holocaust has given millions of people a chance to forgive - some more than others. It gave thousands of people a chance to test their sensitivity to the still small voice. It gave tens of thousands of others a chance to learn from their mistakes.
Without an eternal perspective, there is no way of truly knowing.
Comment by SilverRain — January 25, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
And as far as #28 - why would God have to “micromanage” things to make certain no mugger would kill baby Adolf, as you put it? He only has to plan.
Comment by SilverRain — January 25, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Reaching back to Elder Oaks’ talk on becoming, a difference I see between baby Adolf and the one responsible for the Holocaust is that the young one hasn’t ripened in his iniquity — his nature is not hardened into hardness.
I recall back during the protracted Iran-Iraq war that Pres. Hinckley’s spoke of his concern for the young generation growing up in the war and having that bitterness “woven” into their souls.
Maybe one of God’s acts of mercy is to remove people from a life that would result in them becoming such, if removing them from that influence would spare them developing fully an evil nature. Noah’s flood could be seen as that, sparing maybe the people and definitely the world.
Comment by manaen — January 25, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Sometimes I fantasize about Cindy Sheehan traveling back in time to kill baby Adolf.
Comment by gst — January 25, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
So this reminds me of one of my favorite missionary topics. Who has sent more people to the Celestial kingdom–[insert name of famous missionary, Ammon etc.] vs. Adolf Hitler, King Herod or any other person responsible for the deaths of many children under 8?
Frankly, auto-salvation upon death under 8 doesn’t make sense to me. I like to think of this doctrine as either simply being wrong or so misunderstood as to be useless.
Comment by Aaron E — January 25, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
“All who have died without the accountability to do evil, who would have murdered millions if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be damned to eternal hellfire.”
– D&C 137:7, as rewritten by Ronan’s seminary class
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 25, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Perhaps some children are accountable before they reach the age of 8. So what happens to these children? Do they still reach the Celestial Kingdom if they die waiting for their baptism? I should say not, because it wouldn’t be their fault for not getting baptized. I think they would still reach the Celestial Kingdom because the only reason they were not baptized was because they were not allowed to be.
I recall hearing a story about how a mother asking her bishop if her mentally retarded adult son should be baptized. The bishop said no so she asked the stake president if he was right. The stake president replied that if the bishop were not right, it would be on his head rather than her son’s. Therefore, the son would still reach the Celestial Kingdom.
Comment by D. Allen — January 25, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
I’m with Aaron E. — automatic exaltation can’t be reconciled with the plan of salvation. To accept it requires us to admit that Satan’s plan would work: impair our mental faculties so we reproduce and die without reaching a mental age above eight, and presto, exaltation all around and not one soul is lost. Christ’s plan is only better than Satan’s if facing temptation, and the possibility of damnation, is in fact necessary for our eternal growth. That’s why I believe Section 137 means to say that those who die before the age of accountability are guaranteed an early resurrection, and that they will have the opportunity to grow through adversity at the end of the millenium.
Comment by Matt Evans — January 25, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
The plan of salvation as we see it and interpret it is still in it’s infancy in the church. There are many loose ends that need wrapprd up before we can make too many truthful judgments. Many do not even understand the plan as outlined in the scriptures. Every single person who has ever died before being accountable will be given the chance to perform and act out their agency regarding the choice of eternal life or eternal death.
To deny agency for them to make that choice themselves would cause shockwaves throughout the heavens. Is it that we are saying that they will never be able to mature enough to make the choice and thus be automatically saved into the kingdom? No, that is not what we are saying. All those who have died before becoming accountable will be resurrected and during the millennium, they will have the opportunity to be baptized and find an eternal companion if they so desire. They could also choose to be wicked too I suppose.
We seem to always forget the purpose of the millennium. The millennium is specifically for the perfecting of the saints who Christ saves. All those who Christ saves will live and reign on the earth during the millennium until all enemies (sin and death) are conquered. This means that the 1000 year period is for our perfection so that we can enter back into our fathers presence. Many of us have not yet been given the opportunity to live a Celestial law let alone even learn what that law entails. For those who died before becoming accountable, this time is also for their ability to grow and mature and make decisions themselves- to excercise that agency of where they want to go according to their own desires.
So I too believe that salvation for children who die before becoming accountable as a hard locked doctrine is probably either not correct or not yet truly defined.
Comment by Rob Osborn — January 25, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Also as a sidenote, Compare Moroni 8:22 with D&C 76:72. Both talk of beings who are “without law” and that redemption comes automatically on all those who are not condemned. Also, I find it interesting that D&C 76:72 talks of a certain group of people who are outside of the law meaning that they do not need to repent. Could the verse possibly be talking about the handicapped?
Comment by Rob Osborn — January 25, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
You all have lost the context for the initial discussion of the salvation of innocents. This kind of doctrine provided a potent answer for ex-Calvinists who had lived (or remembered those who had lived) under constant threat of separation from their children, not just from high infant mortality, but from the specter of God’s inscrutable election. This teaching provided wonderful comfort and courage in the face of the great tragedy of premature mortality. Whether it had sufficient theological cogency to survive over the long term was almost certainly secondary to the people who initially encountered it within Mormonism.
Incidentally, popular Protestantism of the nineteenth century (and before and after frankly) has a reasonably robust tradition of seeing children as innocents taken back to God’s presence to await the coming of their devoted family. JSJ seems to have found a system to support this idea within his revelations. If this is a “happy” as opposed to a “true” doctrine, I’m glad to keep it around.
Comment by Sam MB — January 25, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
automatic exaltation can’t be reconciled with the plan of salvation.
So far, so good.
To accept it requires us to admit that Satan’s plan would work: impair our mental faculties so we reproduce and die without reaching a mental age above eight, and presto, exaltation all around and not one soul is lost.
I like your interpretation of Satan’s plan as being “to impair our mental faculties…” However, I don’t understand the implications of that plan to be a guarantee of exaltation. In fact, I understand it to remove exaltation from the picture altogether. I’ll explain more below.
Christ’s plan is only better than Satan’s if facing temptation, and the possibility of damnation, is in fact necessary for our eternal growth.
Correct. And facing temptation is necessary for our eternal growth; therefore, Satan’s plan excludes the possibility of exaltation. Facing and overcoming temptation is not, however, a prerequisite to admission into the CK. Only being free of sin is a prerequisite.
That’s why I believe Section 137 means to say that those who die before the age of accountability are guaranteed an early resurrection, and that they will have the opportunity to grow through adversity at the end of the millenium.
I think that when Section 137 says that “all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven” it is referring to definition #2 (salvation from sin, see TTTF article on Salvation), not definition #6 (exaltation). Your interpretation leaves the possibility that little children will fail to withstand adversity in the millenium, in which case how would they qualify for the CK? My interpretation puts them in the CK, but requires them to earn exaltation once they get there. Not everybody in the CK will be exalted. Perhaps most will not be.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 26, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Last Lemming, I don’t know that I disagree with your position, but it raises serious difficulties. When you say, “only being free of sin is a prerequisite” for admission into the Celestial Kingdom (or salvation or exaltation or whatever), this statement really calls into question the purpose of life on earth. If we suppose that infants are sinless, then it would seem that — from an eternal perspective — every day we live past our first is (a) a waste of time, and (b) eventually and eternally dangerous. Life becomes a dangerous waste of time because we don’t acquire anything we need here; entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, and perhaps exaltation, can only be lost here, not gained. We’re left in a situation in which someone who devotes her life to murdering babies may well be regarded, in the eternal perspective, as one of the greatest benefactors in human history.
In thinking about the doctrine of children’s accountability, it’s important for us to also think about the consequences of our arguments for the doctrine of the purpose of life. I think these two issues are in stronger tension than we sometimes think. Again, as I said much earlier in this thread, I’m forced to repeat to myself: God is great, God is good, God’s ways are not our ways.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am
entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, and perhaps exaltation, can only be lost here, not gained.
I agree that, with the possible exception of a select few, exaltation cannot be gained here, but that it can be lost. Nevertheless, progress can be made. As it states in D&C 130:19:
“And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.”
That implies that those who survive childhood and gain entrance to the CK with more knowledge and intelligence than those who died as little children will have an advantage in reaching exaltation. So earth life is hardly a waste of time.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 26, 2007 @ 10:54 am
entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, and perhaps exaltation, can only be lost here, not gained
A terrifying summary of where all of this can take us theologically if we’re not careful.
Comment by Ronan — January 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
BTW, everyone should follow Stapley’s link in #3.
Comment by Ronan — January 26, 2007 @ 11:07 am
But he was a sweet kid, kind to his mother, and it was rumored that he attended Primary as a child.
Comment by Mark B. — January 26, 2007 @ 11:29 am
This is obviously very complex. It seems if you walk too far in either direction, various other doctrines become stressed.
We apparently don’t understand everything that pertains to this matter. To be exalted, you must be sealed in the temple. Those that don’t have that opportunity on this earth can have it done vicariously. Same with their baptisms. However, we don’t do baptisms in the temple for children who die before 8. I don’t know what this implies, but it seems it should shed some light on our issue.
Moroni (or Mormon) seemed pretty clear on the issue. Children don’t need that ordinance. The atonement covers it. It seems we run into problems when we try to justify coverage of the atonement for certain groups (which we probably shouldn’t be doing anyway). Are we ultimately getting hung up on the justice of some of those souls deserving all the blessings of the atonement, while the rest of us are in danger every day of screwing up our own rights to those same blessings?
If the Lord says “They get the blessings,” then we say “Wait, why? Were they all great souls in the pre-existence? If not, it’s not fair.” We don’t really know what goes into it, and when we try to guess either way, we seem to get stuck. Just my observation.
Comment by Joe B. — January 26, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Salavation, true salvation requires that each individual becomes accountable and then makes the choice on his or her own on whether they will choose “eternal life” or “eternal death”. This life is our opportunity to make that choice. Satan wanted to remove the ability for us to choose and act (agency) by removing the ability once we had fallen to choose eternal life by not providing a perfect savior as eternal law would demand. Satan said that he would be the savior, but we know that imperfect beings can’t possibly save even one soul. Satan knew he could not save even one. God knew this also and that is why he became the father of all lies and also why it says in the scriptures that Satan doesn’t stand by his children at the great and last day (can’t save any who followed his plan).
The “world to come” as mentioned earlier will be the terrestrial kingdom which exists during the millennium. That kingdom/world is specifically designed to allow children to grow and make the choices for their own salvation and exaltation possible. It is also the place where we continue on our path of eternal life by learning how to live Celestial law and becoming perfect.
Comment by Rob Osborn — January 26, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
I agree with number 4 and 5.
Also we should be happy that so many of HF’s children are saved in the CK. I think a great deal of the discomfort that one hears about this idea is simply jealousy.
“Its not fair that my life is so hard and that infant who died at age 2 months gets to go to the CK”
I believe it was BY who taught that in the end HF wins and more souls than most of us think will be in the CK.
Comment by bbell — January 26, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
bbel #49,
I like your last statement about Heavenly Father winning in the end. It brings to mind Moses 1:39. I envision a Celestial Kingdom with numbers that are as great as the stars in the heaven or the sands on the seashore! All we have to do is believe and we shall not perish (die second death) but shall have eternal life. How many in the end will look and believe? I think it will just about be everyone. Helaman 12:23-26 thinks almost all will have eternal life also, all except the very few who are cast out.
Check out my blog- rockofsalvation.blogspot.com if you want a slightly different take on salvation. I would post more here, but I would be hijacking the thread. You seem interested though!
Comment by Rob Osborn — January 26, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
God knows our heart. He has granted us time on the one hand to repent (the probationary state) or to ripen in iniquity. Thus, he grants all men time to show their true colors.
Infants who die in infancy are deemed to be too pure to need much time in mortality. Many choose maybe to die so that they could change the heart of one or more people to God.
Comment by David Brosnahan — January 28, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
David,
All of that assumes that little children are meant to die. I absolutely do not believe that.
Comment by Ronan — January 29, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Seems to me that this boils down to a “nature vs. nurture” sort of thing.
To the extent that Hitler’s spirit was naturally inclined to be a sadistic monster, that would have manifested itself even at a relatively young age. Baby Hitler, to my way of thinking, wouldn’t be getting a free pass anywhere.
To the extent that Hitler’s evil was in fact a product of his life experiences–poverty, traumatic experiences in WW1, or whatever–then Adult Hitler’s situation at the final judgment may not be appreciably more dire than would Baby Hitler’s.
–Jim
Comment by Jimmy S. — February 7, 2007 @ 2:34 pm